[AMPS] SB-220: Operate/Standby Switch

[measures]

>
>> 1.) There would have to be some reasonable assurance lack of a
>> rheostat actually is causing a problem with tube life. That doesn't
>> seem to be the case since almost 80% of tube failures are G/K
>> shorts and the remaining percentage mostly due to loss of vacuum
>> or voltage breakdown failures.
>
With 8877s, most of the failures have been from gold-sputtering.  please 
see Figure 24 on Web site.  

>However, most commercial amps, including every commercial transmitter in the
>AM/FM broadcast industry use a rheostat to control filament voltage.  In
>commercial applications, it's common practice to run a new tube,
>(particularly metal/ceramic power tubes) at the manufacturer's specified
>filament voltage for 500 hours of operation, then reduce the filament
>voltage at or slightly above the point where the emission begins to drop
>off.  Is this directly related to tube failure?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But,
>tube life can be greatly extended when using this method.  

Especially so with filament-type tubes.  

>It's a
>well-settled fact that power tube life is substantially shortened when
>operating a power tube above the manufacturer's recommended filament
>voltage.  In 20 years of commercial broadcasting as a V.P. of Engineering, I
>can honestly say that I had never experienced an open filament due to
>filamant over-voltage, but premature emission reduction can be always be
>expected.  

For heater-type tubes, the problem with excessive heater voltage is that 
it causes barium migration to the grid.  .  

>Going to the station's G.M. with the news that a 4CX20,000D has
>to be replaced or rebuilt is never a pleasant experience.
>
>> 2.) If the rheostat was added, provisions would have to be made for
>> monitoring voltage accurately. Most expensive panel meters are
>> only 2% of FS anywhere on the scale, and to make that worse it
>> would be driven by a rectifier and true-RMS filtering system that
>> would be full of components with tolerances. By the time all is said
>> and done, the $6 rheostat would add $100 of cost to the PA if you
>> bought new parts (which commercially you have to do, unless you
>> are someone who foolishly mixes in surplus parts) and would have
>> to be hand calibrated.
>
>Forget the meter.  Simply add two insulated/isolated test jacks to monitor
>filamant voltage with a hand-held true R.M.S. DVM, or iron vane voltmeter.
>Those of us that feel filamant voltage sampling is important will use it.
>Those who don't aren't stuck with a precision $100 movement.
>
good point

>> 4.) Even if you stopped some life reduction by allowing filament
>> adjustment, the end result would be to add a certain number of
>> hours to the tube life. It would not make the tube live forever, and
>> very likely would not improve it a measurable amount in Amateur
>> service.
>
>Perhaps, but nobody is asking the tube to live forever.  I simply want to be
>able to control the voltage to the tube if I desire so that my elevated 255
>VDC AC mains

Whew

> doesn't translate to 6.5V on a tube rated for 6.0 V.  Let me
>make the choice.  A rheostat and front panel test points is all I need.  I
>realize that amateur service is not a 24/7 operation like that of
>broadcasting, but the benefit can still be realized just like adding
>step-start inrush protection.
>
amen

>> 5.) Factually the easier you make it for someone to screw up or
>> abuse the equipment, the more likely it will happen. There would be
>> a reasonably large percentage of additional failure from component
>> failures and customer abuse or errors.
>
>Any more factual than the presence of the load and plate tune controls on
>the amp?  I can find plently of positions to kill my amp with improper
>tuning technique and excessive overdrive.  To protect against these
>conditions from the operater costs no less than a rheostat.  Keeping the
>adjutsable limits reasonable on a filament rheostat is a simple matter.
>
>> That's why you NEVER, from an engineering standpoint, add
>> components that have negative impacts on other areas of the
>> system. The rheostat Rich "harps" about is a prime example of
>> something that can cause more problems than it cures, because it
>> "corrects" what is almost always a non-problem while adding
>> unreliablity and the potential for damaging human error.
>
>NEVER?  Historically then, why has Harris, Gates, RCA, CSI, Brown-Boveri,
>Continental, BE all included a manual or automatically-driven rheostat in
>their final power tube designs?  There's nothing special about how or where
>these companies decided to place the location of a simple rheostat and I've
>never seen (to my best recollection) a filamant rheostat cause other system
>problems.  Yes, it's possible.  But the risk is certaily worth the addition
>of the control.
>
>> The trend of amplifier design, in the low-tech world we are in, will be
>> to REMOVE customer controls...not add them. Especially when
>> they have the potential to do harm and are unlikely to do any good.
>
>Can't argue with you here.  Look at the Alpha 87A, ACOM 2000, and
>solid-state HF amps.  However, the cost of operator protection goes into
>relatively expensive protection circuits which can, in and of themselves
>fail.
>
>> > In the commercial world, $6 on a component is at least
>> > $12 on the ex-works price. In the case of a variable or
>> >  preset control, where testing and adjustment is
>> > required, add another $5. These are the real costs you
>> > find in a production environment.
>
>Fine, call it $20 for the rheostat and a couple of high-quality Pomona
>Industries test point jacks and I'll still pay for it.
>
>> You forgot the meter and circuits needed, and underestimate the
>> time required to make sure the system is calibrated, as well as the
>> cost of failures in the additional parts (any one of which could
>> actually cause a tube failure).
>
>Again, let the outboard DVM or iron-vane meter be responsible for the
>accuracy.  When I'm not setting filament voltage, I can use it for other ham
>radio domestic chores.
>
>> > So all of a sudden, our filament rheostat is costing $20
>> > plus sales tax to the end user.  Similar sort of add ons
>> > happen for step start, increased cooling for the tank
>> > circuit and so on. Very soon, you're talking of the $5k
>> > plus amplifier. Which is part of the explanation of why
>
>Huh?  How did we go from a $20 rheostat to a $5K amplifier?
>
any port in a storm.  

>> I did a cost estimate on adjustable filament voltage at one time,
>> and asked for statistical data from Eimac on their tube returns.
>> They said other than amps that run the filaments at 10-20% extra
>> voltage (Dentron and two other manufacturers) they saw virtually no
>> preventable filament failures. Such failures were  "in the noise floor"
>> of the statistics. Unlike Rich, I trust what Eimac tells me.
>
>I don't believe its an issue of filamant "failure" or tube returns but one
>of reduced emission life.  

correctamundo - either from tungsten dicarbide loss (filament types)  or 
from barium migration (heater types))


>The addition of a simple rheostat to the power
>tube's filament circuit makes good engineering and economic sense.
>
For me, it indicates good engineering.  

cheers, Paul

-  Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.  
end


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com